In Kirschenbaum v. Gianelli, 63 A.D.2d 1057 (3rd Dep't 1978), the petitioner, just like the instant petitioner, commenced a summary proceeding by notice containing a demand pursuant to RPAPL 743 that if the notice was served at least eight days before the time at which the proceeding was noticed to be heard, the answer be made at least three days before. In Kirschenbaum, the parties, just like the instant parties, adjourned the matter, apparently without addressing the issue of an answer. In Kirschenbaum, the respondents, just like the respondent here, moved for dismissal on the return date, never having answered. In Kirschenbaum, the Justice Court denied the motion and, denying the respondents any extension of their time to answer, entered judgment for the petitioner. The judgment was affirmed by both County Court and, ultimately, the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division held, 63 A.D.2d at 1058, that "a responsive pleading was required at least three days prior to the time the petition was noticed to be heard... The motion was made after expiration of the period for response. Consequently, Justice Court correctly denied defendants an extension of time to serve a responsive pleading."